Immigration flare-up endangers Senate climate change deal

Offshore drilling provisions had been included in a major climate change and energy bill being developed in the Senate. But that measure could be in jeopardy after the lead Republican negotiator abandoned the campaign
over an immigration dispute. (Houston Chronicle file photo)

This report was written by Jennifer Dlouhy of the Washington bureau.

Senators’ plans to unveil broad climate change and energy legislation with much fanfare Monday were scrapped this weekend, when the issue got tangled up with always-contentious politics on U.S.
immigration policy.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told bill supporters in a letter that he would withdraw his support from the measure if Democratic Senate leaders decided to advance contentious immigration legislation before
the chamber takes up the climate change proposal he was developing with Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Ct.

After Arizona’s Republican governor on Friday signed a law cracking down on illegal immigrants, reports circulated that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada might decide to delay debate on the developing climate change bill and instead focus on an immigration overhaul first.

Graham said that moving forward on immigration in a “hurried, panicked manner” was a “political ploy” that would distract from the energy bill. “A phony, political effort on immigration today accomplishes nothing but making it exponentially more difficult to address in a serious, comprehensive manner in the future,” Graham said.

“This has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year,” Graham said. “All of the key players, particularly the Senate leadership, have
to want this debate as much as we do.”

Unless there are changes in the plan to prioritize immigration, “I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time,” Graham said. “I will not allow our hard work to be rolled
out in a manner that has no chance of success.”

The legislation was set to impose new greenhouse gas emissions limits on electric power utilities beginning in 2012, with similar caps on industrial manufacturing beginning in 2016. The legislation also was expected to expand offshore drilling and authorize more federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

Significant portions of the bill were still undeveloped — including the detailed treatment of domestic manufacturing and how refiners and consumers would pay for emissions from transportation fuels, according to sources involved with the negotiations.

Graham’s withdrawal spurred Lieberman and Kerry to call off the planned bill unveiling late Saturday. Lieberman said “allegations of partisan politics will prevent us from introducing the bill on Monday as planned.”

Both he and Kerry said they hoped to continue developing the legislation and raised the prospect that Graham would come back to their campaign. Lieberman said he looked forward “to Sen. Graham
rejoining our efforts after we work through the concerns that are preventing us from advancing a cause the three of us believed in so deeply.”

Reid denied that political motivations were dictating the Senate schedule. Both “immigration and energy reform are equally vital to our economic and national security” and both issues will require “strong bipartisan support,” he said.

Graham is under “tremendous pressure . . . from members of his own party not to work with us on either measure,” Reid said. “But I will not allow him to play one issue off of another.”

Bill supporters bemoaned the setback Saturday. Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, suggested Graham’s decision to pull his support was a “pothole that could become sinkhole.”

Bill critics had a different view. Robert Bradley, the CEO of the industry-supported Institute for Energy Research, said this could be “the delay and probably death of climate legislation this year.” But, he added, that “is good news for energy consumers and the economy,” given a lack of global consensus on dealing with the issue.

One major concern for senators tackling the issue has been how to protect domestic manufacturers against foreign competitors in countries that do not impose similar limits and costs on greenhouse gas emissions.